Leica M10 vs. M vs. M9 vs. M6 vs. Q vs. SL size comparison

one last comparison: #Leica Q, M-E, MP, M10

A photo posted by LeicaRumors 🔴 (@leicarumors) on


Several size comparisons between the new M10 and other Leica cameras:

Leica M10 vs. Leica M Typ 240



  • Leica M10 and Leica M are the same width (139 mm) and both of the same height.
  • Leica M10 is 8% (3.5 mm) thinner than Leica M.
  • Leica M10 [660 g] weights 3% (20 grams) less than Leica M [680 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Leica M10 dimensions: 139x80x38.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Leica M dimensions: 139x80x42 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Leica M10 vs. Leica M9


  • Leica M10 and Leica M9 are the same width (139 mm) and both of the same height.
  • Leica M10 is 4% (1.5 mm) thicker than Leica M9.
  • Leica M10 [660 g] weights 13% (75 grams) more than Leica M9 [585 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Leica M10 dimensions: 139x80x38.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Leica M9 dimensions: 139x80x37 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Leica M10 vs. Leica M6

  • Leica M10 is 1% (1 mm) wider and 4% (3 mm) taller than Leica M6 TTL.
  • Leica M10 is 1% (0.5 mm) thicker than Leica M6 TTL.
  • Leica M10 [660 g] weights 13% (75 grams) more than Leica M6 TTL [585 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Leica M10 dimensions: 139x80x38.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Leica M6 TTL dimensions: 138x77x38 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Leica M10 vs. Leica Q



  • Leica M10 is 7% (9 mm) wider and both of the same height.
  • Leica M10 is 59% (54.5 mm) thinner than Leica Q Typ 116.
  • Leica M10 [660 g] weights 3% (20 grams) more than Leica Q Typ 116 [640 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Leica M10 dimensions: 139x80x38.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Leica Q Typ 116 dimensions: 130x80x93 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Leica M10 vs. Leica SL



  • Leica M10 is 5% (8 mm) narrower and 23% (24 mm) shorter than Leica SL Typ 601.
  • Leica M10 is 1% (0.5 mm) thinner than Leica SL Typ 601.
  • Leica M10 [660 g] weights 22% (187 grams) less than Leica SL Typ 601 [847 g] (*inc. batteries and memory card).
  • Leica M10 dimensions: 139x80x38.5 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)
  • Leica SL Typ 601 dimensions: 147x104x39 mm (camera body only, excluding protrusion)

Via camerasize.com

For additional Leica M10 coverage please follow the new Leica M10 Facebook group and Leica M10 Facebook page. Leica M10 pre-order links:

US Worldwide
B&H
Adorama
PopFlash
Leica Boutique Palm Beach
Leica Store San Francisco
Leica Store Miami
Tamarkin
Classic Connection
Meister Camera (Germany)
Reddotcameras (UK)
MKKamera (Hong Kong)
Rangefinder (Hong Kong)
9days (Hong Kong)
Map Camera (Japan)
This entry was posted in Leica M, Leica M10. Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Frank McKay

    This doesn’t make sense, looks like some Alternative Facts being used.

    “Leica M10 is 4% (1.5 mm) thicker than Leica M9”

    And it’s 1% (0.5%) thicker than the M6 TTL?

    But that would suggest the M9 is 1mm thinner than the M6 TTL!

    But we can clearly see in the embedded instagram photo (and elsewhere) that the M-E (M9 chassis) is far larger while the M10 and MP (which is identical in size to the M6) are very close in size.

    So clearly the (widely circulated) dimensions used above for the M9 and it’s derivatives are wrong.

    Also the thickness of the M10 includes protrusions, I have an M10 here and 38.5mm is the distance from lens mount to thumb grip. Equally the M6 and film cameras dimensions have always included all parts and stated the largest values of dimensions. It wasn’t until the M8 that Leica began to seemingly fudge these values.

    I can understand excluding thumb grips on the Ms but excluding the “protrusion” on the SL is a more than a bit creative – that’s not counting a major part of the camera body which houses the battery, SD card, shutter button etc.

    • My only explanation is that the top plate/body of the M10 is thinner, but now the LCD screen and mount are “sticking out” a little bit more, so yes – the M10 is thinner, but when you measure the absolute external dimensions, the size is probably identical to the M9.

      • Frank McKay

        All I’m saying is if this is meant to be a useful comparison chart then the methodology needs to actually be the same for all data – and it isn’t.

        The ‘(camera body only, excluding protrusion)’ statement does not apply to the M6, M240 or M10 measurements stated. The measurements here for those cameras are all inclusive and state their largest dimensions including all camera parts.

        ‘(camera body only, excluding protrusion)’ definitely applies to the M9 measurements however and there lies the error.

        So I think your explanation of excluding parts from dimensions actually applies to the M9 :

        I believe the M9 top plate to be approx 37mm based on measurements posted on forums and side by side images (such as the instagram photo included here)

        So the 37mm thickness for the M9 actually excludes protrusions such as LCD, menu control pad, lens mount and frameline selector. If we add these on the camera will likely be around 41mm – or approx 1mm smaller than the M 240 in size.

        What I do know for sure –

        I actually have an M10 here so I can confirm total thickness of the M10 is 38.5mm, that’s from front of raised lens mount to the raised thumb grip on the back. So the widest point of the M10 is 38.5mm (INCLUDING all ‘protrusions’ like LCD, grip etc)

        The M10’s top plate is around the publicised 33.75mm (and the actual body thickness ‘excluding protrusions’ like LCD, raised viewfinder, etc is about the same as this)

        I can also confirm the M 262’s top plate is 38mm (basically the same body dims as M 240) . From front mount to thumb grip the camera is 42mm.

        The LCD, menu pad, buttons etc are all within this 42mm depth. So 42mm is the all inclusive total thickness of the whole camera & all parts – again no protrusions are excluded here.

        The M6 TTL almost matches your dimensions (height is actually 79.5mm like the M7) but those dimensions are again inclusive of all parts – nothing is excluded. The thickness stated is from front protrusions such as frameline selector and battery door to the raised ISO dial on the back door.

        Holding these cameras back to back confirms the M9 and M 240 are very close in terms of size – and both are much larger and thicker than the M10 and MP/M7/M6 etc (I’ve done this in a camera shop over the weekend).

        Equally looking at photos of the cameras side by side clearly confirms this, e.g.:

        Leica M6, M9, M240 side by side:
        https://www.flickr.com/photos/boozooz/15873495901

        M9 & M 240 side by side, note how the M9 does not lie flat due to protusions and appears the same size but actually thicker:
        https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5177c8d1e4b084b94e4b5c0e/t/5183a805e4b0046126d1462c/1367582728975/KJD_0939.jpg

        and lastly the instagram image posted above shows the M10 is clearly much smaller than the M-E (M9) in all respects.

        Lastly if you exclude the SLs ‘protrusion’, i.e. the whole right hand grip side of the camera housing most of what makes the camera function (i.e. the shutter button, battery etc) then you have to exclude the Qs ‘protrusion’ (i.e. it’s lens)

        • Pantechnicon

          It is probably down to the temperature…

          • Frank McKay

            Agreed, possibly due to global warming.

            Could also be due to the accelerated expansion of the universe or multidimensional reality.

          • Thiseas

            so much for photo enthusiasts who wanted a “stripped down to the essentials camera” for the absolute – if not purer – photo experience, yet they debate on millimetres 🙂

          • Pantechnicon

            Yes, that coupled with it having been chilly in the lab that day: Hans was wearing a balaclava and mittens when he took his metal ruler out of the kettle (where he is in the habit of keeping it inbetween critical measurements).

    • Jonathan Kott

      And the m6 ttl is 2mm taller than the m6 which is 77mm tall.

    • CHD

      Never question Trump Jong-Un and his alternative facts!

    • Hollis Duncan

      Sean Spicer says this is the smallest and lightest Leica M ever made?

  • TwoStrayCats

    Well, what’s not to Leica about it?

  • Pantechnicon

    Interesting to see these: the M10 viewfinder looks like an easy win when you see it beside a 240 like this.

  • eric

    interesting comparison between Q and m10. Q has smaller body but bigger lens. m has bigger body but smaller lenses. similar sensor though. i wish the Q had an optical view finder though and not evf. that kind of makes me want to get the M instead. the balance between the future and the past seems better in the m than q.

    • Christian Hälg

      the Q is right as it is. even the video is fine. i wish they plan another Q like a Q90 with 90mm lens (no video please). why would you want to change lenses on a digital camera and expose the sensor to the dusty environment for short time? my holiday package consists of a Q for landscape and street photography and a 85mm equivalent (from another brand) for portraits.

      • eric

        i like aspects of the Q, but i dont completely like the distortion that comes from a 28mm compared with a 35mm lens. its wider than the ricoh gr, its probably more like a 26mm lens. I dont think the leica Q is weather sealed so dust could always get into the camera somehow. im not really concerned about sensor dust on an m, either. im a one lens person leica wise. i would put a 35mm on an M, or then get the Q, but i wouldnt change around lenses. not my style with leica’s.

  • Bo Dez

    We have lost some key functions for a coupe of mm. Terrible.

    • We have lost video, battery live… what else?

      • abortabort

        We’ve lost the complaining that digital M’s are thicker than film M’s. What will people have to talk about now?

        • Bo Dez

          They could have dropped the size and kept the functionality and then no one would have anything to complain about.

          • abortabort

            I agree, it should have had video personally and not just the presence of video, but actually really good video.

          • Bo Dez

            Well given the M10 has the same processor as the S which shoots 4K video, I’m sure it would have been quite decent. I would much rather have decent video than no video at all.

          • abortabort

            Yeah agreed. Everyone complained when I said I wanted video in the M10 at least as good as the SL.

          • Bo Dez

            it should have video. There is no reason not to have it in this day and age and when no one is forcing you to use it. I never use auto white balance or auto iso and rarely use aperture priority but I don’t complain that these things are there. It’s stupid to drop these things that Leica have.

      • Bo Dez

        Video, battery life, usb. Things that plenty of users need more than a couple mm thinner.

        • Ok, I forgot USB. To me it’s still worth it, I am sure for some it is not, but the M 240 is still available for sale.

          • Bo Dez

            It’s for sale for now, in a less desirable camera. But what happens when it ceases being for sale and they stop developing it?

          • Les

            “Old users”? Do you mean old-timers who got video in an M for the first time 4 years ago?

            Nostalgia ain’t what it used to be!

            How long before we become nostalgic about the M10, a year? Six months?

          • Bo Dez

            No I mean USB, since the M8.

          • Les

            I’ve never used USB on any camera other than a GoPro (to provide power for a long time lapse).
            Maybe other users feel different, but I don’t think it’s a critical feature for M-style photography.

          • same here, use it when that’s the only way to charge a camera (Sony RX1)

          • Bo Dez

            I use it a lot

          • Brennan McKissick

            You buy something that is better for video?

          • Bo Dez

            Well I’m not just talking about video. But for video it would be much better to have it in the same body, ready to go, like it was. Who wants to carry around another body and lens unnecessarily? Not everything needs the same quality of a feature length hollywood film.

          • eric

            what they should have done is lowered the price of the m10 to like 5k, made it the simple streamlined version and then updated a higher end version of the m240 with video etc. i think that would of pleased everyone.

          • Brennan McKissick

            What are you using USB for? To plug the camera in to a computer? Why not just use a card slot… I don’t get it. The M isn’t a “do it all” kind of camera. They have the SL for that.

          • Bo Dez

            I have no interest in the SL for many reasons and it is not good for shooting M lenses. It works but it is not a good and acceptable solution.

          • Brennan McKissick

            Weird. Many other people have had the exact opposite experience.

          • I think they will continue to develop it and will continue to have a camera with video.

          • Bo Dez

            and usb in an optional grip i hope.

        • Mountainous Man

          Hardly. My main complaint when the M240 came out was that it was filled with a bunch of non-rangefinder stuff at the expense of being thicker and heavier than my M9…and I was already complaining that my M9 was bigger than film Ms.

          Now we finally have a digital M that has improvements for a rangefinder user, but at a size closer to the film M cameras. It took Leica over a decade, but it looks like they finally got the digital M right.

          • Bo Dez

            No they messed it up. They were on the right track. Most of this they could have kept and made it smaller. This is the best M and the worst M all at once.

    • Tim Rule

      Look at it from Leica’s perspective, if you want a new M and those functions then you are going to be buying the M and the SL 😉 Sorry, but that is how Leica is … they don’t really complete against themselves, as a matter of policy it seems.

      When the changes trickle down to the M-D I might actually open the wallet … the new M is certainly a step in some direction.

      But then there is that other new camera on the block … difficult times ahead.

      • Bo Dez

        no no no. I’m not buying a whole other system to have usb and video that is ridiculousI don’t care what Leica think. I don’t like the SL at all and it’s not good for shooting M lenses. Leica are shooting themselves in the foot here in a time when it’s already too easy to go for another camera like the Hasselblad X1D. RIP Leica.

        • Paul

          I tried the SL with my noctilux as well as a 28mm f/1.4 and while I prefer rangefinders in general the SL plus plus M lenses felt really natural together. What gear have you got and what combinations have you tried?

  • SomeoneNotImportant

    Vulcanite was the best. Good times!

    • Thiseas

      I was actually writing exactly this “BRING ON THE VULCANITE” 🙂

    • abortabort

      Have to wait for the ping-pong bat version for grippyness 😛

  • Thiseas

    Is it only me who thinks that vulcanite + black paint looks much better than the matte-ish black chrome + leatherette?

    • abortabort

      I definitely don’t prefer black paint. What’s worse than black paint on a Leica? Silver paint. Gross.

    • Bo Dez

      I much prefer the matte finish of black chrome. It looks amazing.

  • Paul

    How does it compare to the final version of the Zeiss Ikon?

  • paorin

    This comparison is wrong. M9 is surely not thinner than M6, and from the pictures it’s not thinner than M10. I’ve just measured the thickness at the bottom cover: 31mm for M6 (and MP) and 35mm for M9 (and Monochrom). I don’t have an M10 to measure and compare, but if anyone could take the same measure from an M10 and post it here it would be extremely useful.
    By the way, Q is 31mm at the bottom cover, like M6.

    • Christian Hälg

      It’s ridiculous to compare a Q WITH lens with a M10 WITHOUT. What they really should do is compare the bottom plates of the cameras and their height. All of them have some elements that protrude, even the M3 has metallic frames around the finder windows that protrude maybe one millimeter. So please compare what’s comparable. Paolo is right, the bottom plates of the Q and the M6 (and the M3) all have the same width, the Q being quite shorter.
      My wishes: Give me a digital M3 and/or a Q90 (90mm) without video but with the same batteries.

      • The Q vs M10 comparison is just to give you an idea of the size, nothing more.

  • eric

    i noticed on one m10 review it listed the effective pixels at less than 24mp; they were like 23.9 or something, 5989×3989…is that right?

  • storm17

    This is great! Back to M basics. I was just off about the sensor (CMOS, not CCD). Remains to be seen whether M line will go Classic (pure photography) and Contemporary (bells, whistles and kitchen sink), or it will just be M Classic and SL for Contemporary. I think now it will be the latter.

    Already sold off my MP to make way for this. M11? My wishlist would be:

    *M6 Classic size & weight, and as handsome as that camera externally (but with bronze top and bottom plates, please!
    *M4 build quality
    *MP pricing
    *no LCD – image review can be done in EVF
    *choice of only 2 formats – pure B&W and uncompressed DNG
    The perfect digital M!

  • Uncle Ruddy Null

    Certainly wrong info above when comparing the thickness of the M10 with the M9. The M9 is thicker, not the M10.

  • Back to top